Help talk:Style guide
Redirecting :"Otherwise, create a soft redirect at the Old Tongue definition page (such as ''gaidin, which should link to Warder)."'' I've got to question this part- it makes more sense to me to redirect the least-common name to the most prevalent one, and include the Old Tongue name in the main article. Eg: :"'''Warders' (Old Tongue: "Gaidin")...."'' --Maru (talk) 19:44, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Seems like a good idea to me --Gherald 08:30, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC) definite/indefinite articles : I'm beginning to rethink this, at least for the Shadow and the Light. Obviously the series title has to stay the way it is. Input? nae'blis (talk) 08:07, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC) Output: $ for i in Creator Light Shadow Dark; do grep "alnum: *The $i" wot1-9.txt; done When the coach drew up in front of The Light of Truth, Juilin hopped down to open the In this sequel to the phenomenal New York Times bestseller The Shadow Rising, Robert Jordan * Ch. 33 - A Message From The Dark Basically I think these should be included as [[The Article Name]] if and only if the name is capitalized that way by the books. [[the Article Name]] doesn't make any sense, thankfully. Moreover, I strongly advocate plaintext prefixing of links inside articlespace with these, where appropriate (see project:chapter summaries). Quick mockup example: Characters A Myrddraal - by the wolf name Neverborn A Myrddraal - as a Fade Redirects can be created liberally, though repeated use of redirects from articlespace is frowned upon; so don't link to e.g. [[The Creator]] carelessly. Rather: the Creator The Creator The first is generally preferable, and should be capitalized using normal sentence-starting rules; the second should only be used if there is a good stylistic reason for the full thing to be a link..... I can't think of any offhand, but they may exist --Gherald 08:51, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC) : The only ones that really occur to me are the book titles, obviously, and complete phrases (the bleakness I think is always said that way, so it may be an example. nae'blis (talk) 22:12, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC) singular/plural article titles : Further information: I'm less certain of how to title articles for White Lions, Dreadlords, and Whitecloaks, since they are seen as plural as often as they are singular, if not more. nae'blis (talk) 22:32, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) :: Pluralizing links is so much easier than un-pluralizing them, that as long as it makes sense to write something like: He killed/destroyed a [[singular article name]] ...we should stick with singular. --Gherald 23:37, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::: Yeah, that makes sense in most cases (and follows WP precedent). I'll fix the existing links/potential links we have, except where it makes overwhelming sense to have the plural be the default (such as organizations like the White Lions). nae'blis (talk) 17:26, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC) titles and honorifics *Queen Morgase is fine, but I'm not so sure about [[charname Sedai]], [[Lord charname]], [[Lady charname]], et. al. It seems that could quickly become excessive, and that articles should individually format their links to include the title if desired. Maybe this is what you mean by "within reason" --Gherald 22:26, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) ** Yeah, essentially that's what I meant. Maybe limit it to royalty? nae'blis (talk) 14:51, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) ** I think for general clarity and ease of application, titles and honorifics should not be included in the link. If titles are linked, I think it should be seperately, to a page that is devoted to the title itself. Far too many titles exist, and are gained or lost, in WoT. --DanceTheSpears 15:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC) *** I'm not clear on what you mean by "not be included in the link". Is "Lord Perrin" resulting in Lord Perrin okay? Or are you saying it should always be "Lord Perrin" ? You know, now that I think about it, what I said doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think that I'm mostly thinking of from a general overall writing perspective we should avoid title use if possible, as they're somewhat temporary in nature, but that might be a different issue. For example, Perrin becomes a lord, and the manner in which people adress him changes, but he is not inherently or permanently a lord. Morgase is a good example, as she no longer holds the Queen title. Or Siuan Sanche, articles that refer to her as "the Amyrlin," and not by name, might be confusing depending on what part of the story the read is thinking about. I guess that's the only real reason why I can think of to explain what I said before. I don't really see it as a problem, but I guess something that should generally be kept in mind when using titles. Some titles are temporary and may change, so you need to be specific. With some, you don't. I'm pretty sure anyone could use "the Dragon" in an article with no confusion, because Rand is inherently the Dragon and that doesn't change. Bah, I'm rambling now. Don't let the number of words here make it seem like this is a huge issue to me :) --DanceTheSpears 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Format for Character entries I'm looking for some kind of agreed format for the character entries in the wiki. To me, there should be an intital summary of a couple of lines on who the character is followed by subsections of APPEARANCE, HISTORY, and ACTIVITIES. With NOTES added as an optional extra. All other splits should be subsections of these subsections. APPEARANCE would be straightforward enough. HISTORY should concern the things known about this character before the events of the books i.e. anything that is information about that character at a base level. Such as 'Cadsuane was the strongest sister in the Tower for a thousand years, prior to the discovery of Elayne, Egwene and Nynaeve'. This also includes all info from New Spring because there is such a large time gap between the current world and the one in which New Spring took place. If at all possible, they should be ordered chronologically. ACTIVITIES should include the events that happen in the books. Depending on the level of detail known, the activities could be split into subsections by book (as I did with Kairen Stang, which would be easier with longer entries) or by 'event' e.g. plot points that involve that character. I would say that the former would be easier to apply to all characters, but am happy to do it any way as long as everyone is consistent. The subsections here should also be chronological. A 'NOTES' subsection could also be added if an event needs more detail or main theories discussed. Sheriam's tormentor, for example, can be explored by summing up the main discussion points and possibilities, but it is tangential to the main artical on Sheriam yet might not deserve its own article. Just looking for some kind of feedback or consensus. Thanks! Moridin 2000 14:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Moridin_2000 :I agree that a standard format should be maintained. Starting each page with table of contents, and appearance section that has a physical description of the character is both logical and useful. Ronmamita 18:46, September 13, 2010 (UTC) article names :Moved from discussion on main page. nae'blis (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC) *Mixed articles? Sounds like a recipe for waste of work, out-of-sync articles &etc. We should just go with soft redirects, like Wikipedia. (For an example see Anakin Skywalker). --Maru (talk) 02:08, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** Good call. This should probably be branched out into a full section on how to handle Spoilers. --Gherald 03:41, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC) *** To see what I'm talking about, see the separate articles on Gaebril and Rahvin that now exist. You can read the Gaebril article without ever knowing his true identity, unless you choose to. That's one of the things I hate about EWoT... nae'blis (talk) 23:55, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC) **** I knew what you were talking about, and I agree with Maru about it being a waste of work that would promote out of sync articles. Gaebril is just an assumed name/alias for Rahvin, so there should just be a corresponding Lord Gaebril at Rahvin. I am sorry if you don't like it, but it is the best solution. As you can see from the edit history, there were apparently Star Wars fans who wished to have a seperate article for Anakin on Wikipedia, but it was replaced by a soft redirect to Darth Vader. AFAICT, the only "Reincarnation" which merits seperate articles are Rand and Lews, because they (perhaps somewhat schizophrenically) are not really the same person. --Gherald 18:07, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC) ***** I strenuously disagree; we do not know for entire books who Corlan Dashiva really is, so redirecting him to his pre-incarnated form is a spoiler of the highest magnitude, that cannot be warned about the way the software works now. I disagree about Rahvin as well, but to a lesser degree (for example, are we just going to rewrite/merge away the entire Mazrim Taim article if it comes to pass that he really is one of the Forsaken?). I don't think your two opinions yet constitute any manner of consensus about this. nae'blis (talk) 21:53, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) ****** Our opinions and a clear (IMO elegant) Wikipedia precedent. A soft redirect on Corlan Dashiva will warn just fine. If Taim is a Forsaken, then the Mazrim Taim article will be moved to Mazrim Taim on the Forsaken's page, and become a soft redirect to [[forsaken name#Mazrim Taim]]. --Gherald 22:30, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) *Things do not seem to be done this way. Is the policy now, do create soft redirects? I think it should be. Spewin 16:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC) *:Yeah, I guess soft redirects work fine, although a small explanatory text might not be amiss. "Corlan Dashiva is an Asha'man. For more about his true identity, click the following link:" Interestingly, the famous Anakin Skywalker soft redirect Gherald mentions above has now been split into a full article, as of February 2006. *shrug* I still think the reincarnated Forsaken are a different case from simply redirecting their Age of Legends' names, but I'm not going to buck consensus. nae'blis (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Footnotes Just had a general question on Footnotes. On Moiraine Damodred's page, the footnotes that link to chapters are in a short style done with the book abbriviation templates (i.e. which displays ). However, on the ter'angreal page, the footnotes are in a longer style done with the number templates (i.e. which displays . Just throwing my two coppers in, I think that the later display looks a bit better and also gives you the option of going to either the book's main page or the chapter. Is there a reason for having both sets of templates about which I am not aware? Just wondering. ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 21:07, September 22, 2009 (UTC) :I agree I like the later ones more because of the option it gives. I can go about changing the template so that we wont have to change every page with a note.--Optimous 21:29, September 22, 2009 (UTC) :I definitely agree that the footnotes would be better in an 'expanded' format, but I can't figure out how to do it without breaking all the existing entries, as Optimous mentioned. He tried and it made all the character infoboxes wonky and misshapen. Two templates isn't ideal, but it might be the best way to get both effects (although paradoxically, it makes more sense for the abbreviated one to be the shorter template ( )) I'm open to other ideas for making it look better, up to and including some fancy script that might detect that it's being used in an infobox. :P -- nae'blis 15:50, September 23, 2009 (UTC) Galleries I've been following the discussions about more graphics to include fan art. I think this needs to be formalized as well. May I suggest we formally adopt the section GALLERY that redirects to more graphics to include both official and fan art? I understand both perspectives where it is desireable to increase fan's input and yet maintain a professional resource of WoT. I see a stark contrast between the more numerous pages that have no images and the relatively few pages of main characters that have several (too many) pics. This seems to me an unbalanced format. I had imagined (and may I suggest) each page be limited to a maximum number of 2 or 3 images. All other images could then be in the gallery section. I want to draw your attention to the Egwene page as a current example that could be cleaned up: presently the Egwene page has 8 images where 2 or 3 would work just fine. These 8 pictures of Egwene are so different that they don't appear to be the same woman! This jolts my senses and could possibly confuse new readers. I gather from other discussions that official and fan pics are to be included, so may I suggest a format of one official and one fan pic - or two official and one fan pic be adopted; but a page with 8 images still feels cluttered on the page as a whole. If every page has less than 4 images then the other images would be in the Gallery and all pages would follow a professional and structured format. I suggest that each character be limited to 2 or 3 images and all other images be included the gallery. Sincerely Ronmamita 18:46, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :This is a very interesting idea. I do agree that most main characters have a cluttered amount of image on their page and like the idea of having only a small set of images and mostly being official images with a fan art picture as well. But how would we choose which to keep? Should we take a vote for each main character or should me and Willie just choose what we think is 'best' out of them and put the rest in a character specific gallery?--OPTIMOUS 16:39, October 2, 2010 (UTC) ::Just a question. Are you considering the template image as one of the two or three images, or is it going to be two or three images in the main body of the article? ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]] - [[User Talk:Mainphramephreak|''HtS'']] 22:14, October 2, 2010 (UTC)